Contact

May 30 2013: FBI wants to talk, New York attorney general subpoena. Over 42,000 babies saved. :

Please Donate to EMC so we can maintain our life-saving offices and mobile team, and prepare for a great summer of life-saving nationwide, all for the sake of many hundreds of vulnerable babies and mothers at very high risk of abortion.

3/18: Archbishop Dolan and Alveda King:

The City Council may have found a way to regulate so-called crisis pregnancy centers - which try to persuade women to forgo abortions - without infringing on free speech rights. Repeat: May have.

The Council and pro-choice advocates drummed up regulatory legislation because, first and foremost, they take umbrage at the anti-abortion message delivered by the centers.

Hoping to stifle an opposing view is always a bad motivation for writing laws, but the final bill could pass court muster as a consumer protection measure. Still, it's a very, very close call.

The centers have names like Pregnancy Help and Pregnancy Resource Services. Although they do not mention "abortion" on their signs or in advertisements, some women visit thinking they will get assistance in terminating a pregnancy.

Instead, women meet staff members who are interested in persuading them to carry pregnancies to full term and give birth. In some cases, the staff will reinforce the message by taking an ultrasound image of a fetus.

Although organizations like EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers, which has 12 offices, have a clear constitutional right to deliver their views, the National Abortion Rights Action League charged, in effect, that the groups deceive women by setting up shop in a pro-choice city where women could confuse them with abortion providers.

The advocates demanded legislation requiring the centers to post signs saying they do not offer abortion services. Since that would never fly in court, the Council came up with a bill that says abortion providers and opponents have to state their business if they meet certain criteria.

Those include using an ultrasound machine or presenting themselves in ways that might actually be deceptive. For example, having staff wear medical garb and equipping an office with medical tables in order to imply to women who wander in that abortions would be available.

Standards like that give the bill some merit as a consumer protection measure, but subjecting an anti-abortion center to regulation because it takes health insurance information from a woman seeking prenatal care crosses the line into harassment.

Mayor Bloomberg intends to sign the bill. He should do so understanding that it is designed to squelch advocacy and is propped up by the thinnest of legal reeds.

It is never a good idea for lawmakers to draft legislation based solely on the urgings of advocates for one cause or another, and it is particularly dangerous when the measure in question could curtail First Amendment rights.
That's what's happened with a bill sponsored by City Councilwoman Jessica Lappin and Speaker Christine Quinn. They should know better.

The National Abortion Rights Action League, a pro-choice lobbying group, has targeted 16 so-called crisis pregnancy centers in the city. These are establishments where abortion opponents present women with alternatives to ending pregnancies, such as adoption and single-parenting.

NARAL called eight centers and visited 10, posing as women who might be pregnant and inquiring about services. While finding that the centers "present themselves as hospitable places offering emotional support," NARAL asserted that they "engage in deceptive and manipulative practices," attempting to "coerce women considering abortion into carrying their pregnancies to term."

Without investigation or hearings, Lappin and Quinn - both pro-choice - drew up a bill to require centers to post notices stating that they do not provide abortions or contraception; disclose that no medical provider is available if none is on the premises, and commit to treating all information gathered from a client as confidential.

The implication: It is deceptive just to open up shop as an anti-abortion advocate, and an affront to present women with alternatives. As if women need to be shielded from this information.

What's more, NARAL's evidence shows no deception by the centers. None have "abortion" in their names; they have names such as Pregnancy Help and Pregnancy Resource Services.

More than half the websites say they are "pro-life" or do not recommend abortion. None of the centers gave researchers inaccurate information over the phone and, when asked, most said they don't perform abortions or provide referrals.

The report describes no harm sustained by any patient - and even contains potent disclaimers: "The findings contained herein are not exhaustive." "This report contains no insight into how CPCs would respond to a proven pregnancy."

All of which adds up to no basis for infringing on anyone's right to advance a cause, however disagreeable one finds it.

View article on NYDailyNews.comOur comment on article:
Of course, it should be made clear the reason we at EMC FrontLine Pregnancy Centers have ultrasound techs wearing scrubs in some of our 12 locations is to provide ultrasounds, under the supervision of doctors, to provide an actual real service. We do not need to pretend to be medical because when we provide the ultrasounds, we do so legally. We also provide pre-natal care with board certified real, not fake, MDs.

On March 2nd 2011, the New York City Council voted 39-9-1 to pass Bill 371-A, forcing harsh regulations and free speech restrictions on pro-life pregnancy centers in NYC.

On March 24, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed suit on EMC's behalf against NYC, seeking a preliminary injunction against this unconstitutional law. Complaint (pdf). Also, Alliance Defense Fund filed suit on Friday March 18th.

Please Sign Our Petition and share this on Facebook to show you support EMC Frontline pregnancy centers. Click "Like":

Help by Donating to EMC so we can fight 371-A and continue helping moms in need.

Please pray for our lawyers and for legal victory.

What Bill 371 will do:

Force pro-life pregnancy centers to post on all advertising, doors, websites, pamphlets, waiting room walls paragraphs of government language listing what services they DON'T offer (no other organization has to do this) and state these paragraphs of government language verbally every time they pick up the phone or talk to anybody, under threat of the extreme penalties of jailtime, personal lawsuits, thousands of dollars of fines, and police shutdown of volunteer pregnancy help centers run by generous volunteers charged with no wrongdoing and who have had zero charges, client complaints, or lawsuits filed against them

Forces volunteers to comply with burdensome confidentiality regulations not required by other NYC non-profits or volunteer organizations, and which prohibit the reporting of rape/prostitution to the police, all with no evidence of any abuse of confidential information ever occurring by pro-life help centers.

This is extreme free-speech discrimination to intimidate and imprison Christian volunteers who have never been charged with breaking any law, and who have never had a lawsuit of consumer complaint filed against them, after 25 over years of helping over 100,000 NYC moms with the financial and concrete assistance and love and counseling to help them through pregnancy and raising a child. These pro-life centers ensure that NYC mothers have a REAL CHOICE and aren't left with abortion clinics as the only place they can go.

Exempts all NYC abortion clinics from any of the same regulations, even NYC facilities where women have died during abortions and that have malpractice lawsuits against them, because they have doctors present performing abortions. This is a clear attack on Christian pro-life volunteers.

There are more abortions in NYC than anywhere else in the US by far (~90,000/year), and the people profiting tremendously from selling abortion have teamed with the City Council to destroy Christian volunteer help centers that offer women real, free assistance, love, and help, and fine, imprison, and intimidate their volunteers, for the direct financial benefit of businesses selling abortions.

Attacks SPEECH rights:

no other NYC law forcing any organization to list what services they DON'T provide

attacks speech rights of pro-life volunteers

the only NYC organizations that this bill will affect are the pro-life pregnancy centers in NYC, run by volunteers

recent wording changes to bill 371 to seem as if Council is not singling out a group isn't fooling anybody - this bill is designed to regulate pro-life centers of NYC only, and will only affect them

similar law in Baltimore ruled unconstitutional 2 weeks ago by federal judge in Maryland on free speech grounds

"False ADVERTISING": lie

No evidence of false advertising

if there were, we would be being charged in court with violating state advertising laws, but we're not because there is ZERO evidence

EMC (largest network of NYC CPS)'s ads are 100% honest

Free abortion alternatives

free pregnancy tests

free counseling

free ultrasounds

all 100% honest

If about truth in advertising, why no requirements for Planned Parenthood?

"It's about HEALTH": lie

why is A1 clinic not forced to post that they killed this woman, and list any malpractice lawsuits they have?

why aren't abortion clinics forced to post risks of abortion on their doors?

WAY more women use their services

abortion clinics in NY outnumber pro-life centers 10 to 1

nobody ever died at a Crisis Pregnancy Center

why is the City Council trying to bully helpful volunteers?

no evidence of CPC volunteers falsely acting as doctors

if there were, we would be charged in court with violating existing state health laws, but of course aren't because no evidence

CONFIDENTIALITY:

prohibits the reporting of rape/prostitution to the police

ZERO evidence of ever leaking client information

the one story told at the hearing in Nov was a second-hand story with no actual evidence provided of being true.
With over 100,000 women counselled in 25 years by EMC alone, NARAL and Planned Parenthood couldn't find a single actual client MOM to testify negatively about CPCs besides one pro-abortion ACLU activist who posed as someone needing help

more than a dozen moms were at the hearing happy to testify about the help and love they received from CPCs

new requirements burdensome for volunteers at pro-life nonprofits

other organizations (that collect much more confidential data) won't have new "confidentiality" regulations, just pregnancy center volunteers

ex. gyms, health clubs, cable companies

it's wrong to single out pregnancy-help volunteers for burdensome regulations given zero evidence of wrongdoing

EMC, largest chain of NYC CPCs:

been around 25 years, over 100,000 served

never been sued by a single client

never had single consumer complaint filed against them

Bias by Bill Supporters and Council:

Head of NARAL NY, Kelli Conlin, just got fired for major ethics violations of dishonesty, using NARAL money for own personal use. NARAL NY's credibility under her direction is thus highly questionable

Help by donating to EMC (the largest network of crisis pregnancy centers in NYC):

Get Informed :

First Amendment FlameoutFebruary 26, 2011

Free speech is about the honest ex change of ideas, a fundamental principle of liberal democracy.
So why are allegedly liberal city Democrats seeking to silence speech?
On Thursday, after a 48-hour full-court press from the legislative and political establishment, a Soho anti-abortion billboard ad was taken down.

The ad's text, by a picture of a young black girl, read, "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb," with a Web site for more info.
Sure, the rhetoric is provocative.
But facts are indeed stubborn things.
* African-Americans make up 13 percent of the US population -- but account for more than 30 percent of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Insitute.
* In New York City, 60 percent of black pregnancies end in abortion -- three abortions per two live births -- according to the Health Department.
Cause for concern?
What do you think?
Should you be allowed to think?
Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Public Advocate Bill de Blasio -- serious mayoral hopefuls both -- agitated hard against the board, having found its message "offensive."
Which is code for: "Shut up, go away. We don't like what you have to say, and we'll be damned before you say it."
And it's not just the billboard.
Quinn is a primary sponsor of a bill -- scheduled for a full council vote Wednesday -- that would impose major free-speech restrictions on city crisis pregnancy centers.
Without any evidence that these centers -- which counsel women on alternatives to abortion -- act irresponsibly or deceptively, Quinn's bill would require them to post signs that abortions or contraception are not provided; tell clients a doctor isn't available, even if he's temporarily off-site; and impose such strict confidentiality requirements that operators would be unable to report rape or prostitution to the police.
But why are Quinn and her colleagues so fretful?
Is New York City's 41 percent abortion rate not high enough for them?
Was the billboard's message so subversive that it had to be burned?
Along with the First Amendment?

Free choice, free speech: Proposal to regulate anti-abortion counselors is a bad idea
Monday, October 18th 2010, 4:00 AM
It is never a good idea for lawmakers to draft legislation based solely on the urgings of advocates for one cause or another, and it is particularly dangerous when the measure in question could curtail First Amendment rights.
That's what's happened with a bill sponsored by City Councilwoman Jessica Lappin and Speaker Christine Quinn. They should know better.

The National Abortion Rights Action League, a pro-choice lobbying group, has targeted 16 so-called crisis pregnancy centers in the city. These are establishments where abortion opponents present women with alternatives to ending pregnancies, such as adoption and single-parenting.

NARAL called eight centers and visited 10, posing as women who might be pregnant and inquiring about services. While finding that the centers "present themselves as hospitable places offering emotional support," NARAL asserted that they "engage in deceptive and manipulative practices," attempting to "coerce women considering abortion into carrying their pregnancies to term."

Without investigation or hearings, Lappin and Quinn - both pro-choice - drew up a bill to require centers to post notices stating that they do not provide abortions or contraception; disclose that no medical provider is available if none is on the premises, and commit to treating all information gathered from a client as confidential.

The implication: It is deceptive just to open up shop as an anti-abortion advocate, and an affront to present women with alternatives. As if women need to be shielded from this information.

What's more, NARAL's evidence shows no deception by the centers. None have "abortion" in their names; they have names such as Pregnancy Help and Pregnancy Resource Services.

More than half the websites say they are "pro-life" or do not recommend abortion. None of the centers gave researchers inaccurate information over the phone and, when asked, most said they don't perform abortions or provide referrals.

The report describes no harm sustained by any patient - and even contains potent disclaimers: "The findings contained herein are not exhaustive." "This report contains no insight into how CPCs would respond to a proven pregnancy."

All of which adds up to no basis for infringing on anyone's right to advance a cause, however disagreeable one finds it.